Grafted Amine/CO<sub>2</sub> Interactions in (Gas−)Liquid−Solid Adsorption/Absorption Equilibria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects associated with the presence of liquid water on the CO 2 adsorption capacity by SBA-15 silica functionalized with aminopropyltrimethoxysilane (APS) and N -(2-aminoethyl)-3-(aminopropyl)trimethoxysilane (AEAPS) were examined to evaluate the potential of this mode of contact in gas−liquid−solid scrubbing operations for CO 2 partial pressures typical of atmospheric postcombustion flue gases. The results were compared to the CO 2 adsorption capacity of the grafted amines in moist and dry gas−solid conditions along with the CO 2 absorption capacity in gas−liquid amine solution systems consisting of amines with almost identical structures. In these conditions, an estimation of CO 2 physical adsorption was obtained through study of (bare) unmodified SBA-15. Furthermore, to assess the efficacy and long-term stability of the amine/SBA-15 association, grafted amines were subjected to up to eight successive immersion cycle tests (24 h each) in aqueous media. The recovered samples were characterized by X-ray diffraction (XRD), nitrogen sorption isotherm, and CHN elemental analysis. Up to 40% of grafted amines merely leached off in the first few regeneration cycles; thereafter, the nitrogen content of AEAPS remained quite stable, unlike APS which exhibited lower stability. Interestingly, the mesoporous structures of both APS and AEAPS were preserved after several exposures to water. The highest CO 2 capture efficiency was achieved with liquid amines, while CO 2 capture efficiency using grafted amines in gas−liquid−solid systems was intermediate between the ones in dry and in moist gas−solid systems for comparable conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".